Welcome to What's Best Forum! Please consider joining our friendly and helpful community of enthusiasts where we discuss the best in audio and video to everything else we love from food to movies and music. We are proud of the professional conduct of our membership and strict moderation of the same, combined with high level of technical content shared by our members. If you want to learn and have fun doing it, or share what you know about our favorite hobbies without fear of antagonism, WBF forum is for you.
Registration is free and fast, and allows you to post in the forum in addition to the system remembering where you left off in your favorite threads.

We tried our hardest, but IMO failed to unlock the secrets based on RLC through simulations and calculations and graphs. That is why I developed a follow-up thread where we can empirically explore the cable differences through actually building examples with identical material but different LC characteristics here:

Just one detail. Fancy dielectric materials and metals in cables are not an audiophile mania.

Of course not. They are fancy dielectric materials and metals in cables.

They are used in many applications, such as aeronautics, space research, radiation detectors and many others, because of reliability, consistency of manufacture, long term stability and capability of foreseeing any changes in electrical properties during its lifetime.

Of course, but many audiophile cable manufacturers claim that these premium materials and their proprietary designs move more data/current faster, resulting in higher resolution/better sound. Their claims are in direct opposition to this statement:

Surely there are no intrinsic faster/slower sound properties of electric materials.

Regardless, I didn't say anything about audiophile mania, I only asked if it is not the dialectic materials or the metals, then what is it? A reasonable question, I think. But even if there is no difference (unprovable negative, as has been noted often here) or if a difference was undetectable even in carefully controlled listening tests repeated often enough to drive the margin for error into the deep, I would not call it audiophile mania. I would call it expectation bias, a very common, well-documented phenomenon. The only "audiophile mania" is the belief in immunity to that phenomenon.

John Siau's test does show frequency response anomalousness. However, he had to go to extremes to show it. The biggest difference is in the cyan curve - which is a single 24awg twisted pair used as a speaker cable. That's like using a tonearm cable as a speaker cable.

With the cable that *might* possibly be a decently correlated model for a speaker cable (25 pairs of 24awg twisted pair) even over 100ft, showed 0.76deg of phase shift and 0.4dB FR variation.

This is why I suggested using CAT5 cables to construct speaker cables. Using different configuration of the internal 24awg strands will result in different capacitance and inductance characteristics and sound different - even at 6ft where FR and phase difference are so low as to be immaterial.

Regardless, I didn't say anything about audiophile mania, I only asked if it is not the dialectic materials or the metals, then what is it? A reasonable question, I think.

It's a reasonable question. I do not think that it is not the dielectric materials or the metals - they are both contributing factors, but in themselves do not answer the question - is there an audible difference.

But even if there is no difference (unprovable negative, as has been noted often here) or if a difference was undetectable even in carefully controlled listening tests repeated often enough to drive the margin for error into the deep, I would not call it audiophile mania. I would call it expectation bias, a very common, well-documented phenomenon. The only "audiophile mania" is the belief in immunity to that phenomenon.

Tim

It's a long weekend coming up. I'm sure that there's a Radio Shack nearby - how about let's all have a weekend of fun building speaker cables? Whee!! I'm sure our families will be thrilled with that idea

It's a reasonable question. I do not think that it is not the dielectric materials or the metals - they are both contributing factors, but in themselves do not answer the question - is there an audible difference.

It's a long weekend coming up. I'm sure that there's a Radio Shack nearby - how about let's all have a weekend of fun building speaker cables? Whee!! I'm sure our families will be thrilled with that idea

Alas, I have no speaker cables in my system except for the very short ones inside my speaker cabinets. I can't join in the fun.

(...) Of course, but many audiophile cable manufacturers claim that these premium materials and their proprietary designs move more data/current faster, resulting in higher resolution/better sound. (...)
Tim

We have agreed before that most manufacturer claims are excessive and scientifically incorrect. Why coming over their poor and foolish selling arguments in a technical discussion?

BTW, can you write down the names of ten manufacturers that use only scientifically proved arguments in their marketing?

We have agreed before that most manufacturer claims are excessive and scientifically incorrect. Why coming over their poor and foolish selling arguments in a technical discussion?

BTW, can you write down the names of ten manufacturers that use only scientifically proved arguments in their marketing?

You're right, Micro, there wasn't much point in throwing that into this thread. And yes, I'd have a lot of trouble finding audiophile manufacturers who market their products based on nothing but scientific facts. And I'd not have a moment's trouble finding several quite respected ones who lie through their teeth. That bothers me. But I'll get over it.

It depends on the amplitude of your signals. The following lines are taken from an old Keithley book on the use of low current meters. Please remember that 1microVolt (-120dB relative to 1 V) divided by 100000 ohms gives .01nA.

Errors in Low Current Measurements (1)

One of the most common causes of error when measuring low currents (<1nA) is offset current, which can come from the test setup or the measuring instrument.

Potential Cause: Insulating Material
Current can leak through an insulating material or over its surface. The insulating material may itself store or generate charge.

Remedies
A. Choose a good insulator
Several properties are important when evaluating an insulator material:

Volume Resistivity—Leakage of current directly through the material.
Surface Resistivity—Leakage across the surface, a function primarily of surface contaminants.
Water Absorption—Leakage dependent on the amount of water that has been absorbed by the insulator.
Piezoelectric or stored charge effects— The creation of charge unbalances (and thus current flow) or voltage shift due to mechanical stress.
Triboelectric effects—The creation of charge unbalance due to frictional effects when materials rub against each other.
Dielectric Absorption—The tendency of an insulator to store/release charge over long periods of time. For a listing of common insulating materials and their characteristics, see the Keithley Low Level Measurements handbook, Section 2.2.2.